E 241 
.B9 H8 





^°-^*.. 










^0^ 




q,. "*.,'.•' ^0 









^ 



^^^^ 








^^Ov'i'^ 












•• .4^ 



•^0 



> . 











♦ ^o 



^°-n^. 










ST* \0^ •: 




















Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 
in 2010 witin funding from 
Tine Library of Congress 



littp://www.arcliive.org/details/doubtsconcerningOOIiuds 



DOUBTS 



CONCERNING 



THE BATTLE OF BUNKER^S HILL. 



DOUBTS 



CONCERNING 



THE BATTLE OE BUNKER'S HILL, 



ADDRESSED TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 



BY 



CHARLES HUDSON, \l^^-\s«\ 




BOSTON AND CAMBRIDGE : 
JAMES MONROE AND COMPANY. 

MDCCCLVII. 



Entered according to Act of Congres?, in the year 1857, by 

James Muxroe and Company, 

In the Clark's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts- 



Cb 



CAMBRIDGE : 
THURSTON AND TORRY, PRINTERS. 



DOUBTS 

CONCEENINO 

THE EATTLE OF BUNKER'S HILL.* 

ADDRESSED TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 



Dear Brethren, — I address you by the Appella- 
tion of Brethren, for, as a man of the world, I wish 
to set an example of friendship and charity, in 
which Christian sects are too often wanting ; and 
besides, as no unbeliever with whom I am 
acquainted is satisfied with his present opinions, 
and as we are at all times liable to give up the 
opinions we now hold, and to embrace something 
more consoling in the hour of affliction, I am not 
disposed to be more exclusive without faith, than 
some professed Christians are with it. 

You profess to be believers in Christianity; and 
I have no reason to doubt your sincerity. But 
while I accord to you sincerity and honesty of 
purpose, you will agree with me, that faith and 

* Printed from the Christian Examiner of March, 1846. 



4: DOUBTS CONCERNING 

sight are two different things, and that the fact that 
we are fallible beings, should teach us that we are 
not infallible in all our speculations. 

Man is naturally a credulous being. The bump 
of marvellousness is so fully developed in this race 
of ours, that the great mass of mankind are pre- 
pared to believe any story, which has a degree of 
mystery connected with it ; and especially if the 
tale has come down from ancient times, — the hero 
of the story be particularly ignorant or vicious, — 
or the scene is laid in a distant part of the world. 
Hence the most popular fortune-tellers are those 
whose word would not be taken on any ordinary 
subject ; and those who are thought to know the 
most of the future invisible world, are, for the most 
part, those who have the least knowledge of this. 
It is a striking fact in relation to belief, that the 
object of belief must be a little extraordinary. And 
it matters not for what the person or event is 
distinguished, provided it be something out of the 
usual course. 

I know I shall be met with the declaration, that 
man is a combative being, and that what is 
advanced or believed by one, will be assailed by 
another, and hence error is sure to be put down. I 
readily admit the position, but I deny the inference 



HILL. 



altogether. Error grows in the midst of con- 
troversy. So anxious are controversialists to fall 
upon others, that when a new theory is advanced, 
they seldom take the trouble to examine the theory 
itself, but' content themselves with attacking some 
immaterial point ; or they fall out upon some ver- 
bal criticism, or question of construction, thus 
suffering what in parliamentary language is called 
the " main question." to pass without debate as a 
sort of admitted truth. Thus in the great contro- 
versy about a;wsubstantiation and ^ra/isubstantia- 
tion, the disputant forgot to inquire whether there 
was any substantiation in the case. So in the 
Romish Church, while disputing whether infalli- 
bility resided in the Pope or in a General Council, 
they neglected the more important inquiry, whether 
either possessed this attribute of Divinity. In this 
way many a theory grows up, and claims prescrip- 
tion for its support, while its friends and enemies 
are contending about some collateral question. 

It is also manifest, that if a doctrine be permitted 
to grow up, even if this permission arise from the 
fact of its insignificance or absurdity, those who 
have been its abettors, dupes, or victims if it were 
possible, will adhere to it from a sense of pride, or 
even shame. A man deceived at an insignificant 



6 DOUBTS CONCERNING 

show, will pretend that it is worthy of public pa- 
tronage, that he may draw others into the same 
ridiculous position with himself; for no one likes 
to be the sole victim of a cheat. 

I have made these remarks, to show the natural 
propensity in man to believe something, his unwil- 
lingness to abandon any opinion however hastily 
formed, and the great danger there is in believing 
what will not stand the test of close examination. 
I cannot perhaps better illustrate these principles 
than by selecting a case from the midst of us, and 
one too which has now become a subject of 
general, I had almost said, of universal belief. 
I allude to the Battle of Bunker's Hill. There is 
scarcely a man, woman, or child, who doubts 
the fact of that battle; and yet, if they were 
called upon for the ground of their faith, they 
would be compelled to admit that they believed it, 
because others do ; that is, because such a belief is 
fashionable. They believe it, because others do ; 
and would just as readily disbelieve it, if the tide 
of opinion set the other way. They believe it on 
the same principle that the Mahometans believe in 
the Koran, not because they know anything of the 
evidence on which their belief rests, but because 
they have never heard it called in question. 



You may perhaps be startled at the idea of 
rejecting what is so generally believed, and is so 
intimately connected with the history and glory of 
our country, as the Battle of Bunker's Hill is sup- 
posed to be. But I would ask, whether the glory 
of the country rests upon facts, or falsehoods. I 
have no desii*e to disturb what may be called the 
hallowed associations which cluster around that 
spot, but a faithful inquirer after truth should take 
nothing for granted ; but should be governed by the 
weight of evidence, to whatever conclusions it may 
lead him. I am no more bound to believe in that 
battle, because such a belief is general, than I am 
to believe in any other popular error. If it be a 
fact that such a battle was ever fought, let it be 
proved ; and if it be not a fact, the sooner it is dis- 
carded, the better for the honor of our country. 
The Romans, for ages, supposed that the glory of 
their country required a belief in the ridiculous 
story of Romulus and Remus being nursed by a 
wolf; but where is the sober man at the present 
day, who gives any credit to that idle tale ? All 
nations have been disposed to rest their glory upon 
some remarkable exploit of their citizens, or some 
special interposition of Providence. On this prin- 
ciple our own people are disposed to recur to the 



8 DOUBTS CONCERNING 

battle of Bunker's Hill, and have regarded it as an 
event fully sustained by proof, — a sort of " fixed 
fact." This principle is so riveted into the minds 
of our people, has so fastened itself upon the 
wisest and ablest of them, that the great " ex- 
pounder of the Constitution," when vindicating 
the character of Massachusetts, appeared to think 
that a reference to this battle-field would estabUsh 
the patriotism of his adopted State. " There is 
Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker^s Hill, — and 
there they will remain forever." 

Now, is it not by uses such as these, more than 
by any positive proof, that the belief in that battle 
's sustained? Is there not a degree of local or 
State pride, which greatly strengthens this faith? 
People always find it convenient to have some 
admitted principle, some uncontroverted position, 
some foregone conclusion, to which they can recur 
at a moment's warning in any emergency. Such is 
the Battle of Bunker's Hill. Read the political 
addresses, and the Fourth of July orations, and you 
will find that Bunker's Hill is an essential ingre- 
dient, — as indispensably necessary as the Heathen 
gods are to ancient poetry. This labor-saving 
principle, which takes things for granted, and uses 
them without the disagreeable task of proving 



THE BATTLE OF BUNKERS HILL. \) 

them, has been a source of most of the errors in 
the world. And may we not ascribe the general 
belief in this battle to the same principle? It is 
also very difficult to correct any long established 
opinion, and especially if the belief be general, 
?iowever feeble the evidence on which it rests. So 
strongly inclined are most people to cherish precon- 
ceived opinions, especially when these coincide 
with their wishes or interests, that they will hardly 
yield to any authority however decisive. 

I fear, therefore, that I may not be able to con- 
vince the public, that the battle in question is a 
mere fiction. But I will discharge my duty, 
whether the people will hear or forbear. Those of 
you who admit the force of reasoning, — and those 
who do not, I despair of convincing; for you can- 
not reason that out of a man, which was never 
reasoned m, — will agree with me, that faith, to be 
valuable, must rest upon evidence ; and that before 
you can consistently call upon a man to believe, 
you should place sufficient evidence within his 
reach. Now what evidence have we of the Battle 
of Bunker's Hill? You will probably appeal to 
history. But what court of justice would receive 
mere hearsay evidence ? The historians who have 
written and the poets who have sung of this 



10 DOUBTS CONCERNING 

famous battle, do not pretend that they were eye- 
witnesses of the scene they describe. There seems 
to be a kind of sacredness attached to history, to 
which it is not entitled. "What are the elements of 
history ? From what sources do historians gather 
their facts ? Either from tradition, or from some 
hasty and imperfect accounts published at the time. 
Now does not every one know, that little or no 
reliance can be placed upon tradition? And the 
published accounts are equally uncertain. "We 
naturally receive such accounts with great allow- 
ance ; and upon flying rumor we place still less 
reliance. But are these hasty and imperfect ac- 
counts, or these rumors, entitled to any more credit 
after they are embodied in what is called history ? 
If the historian live at the time the event took place, 
he is as liable to be biased by prejudice as other 
men ; and if he live long after the event, he may 
not possess the best means of information. In 
either case his authority is of a questionable char- 
acter. But in this very incidence we find that 
historians differ, and differ too in some very impor- 
tant particulars, as we shall have occasion to show 
hereafter. 

But before we proceed to examine this wonderful 
page in our country's history, it will be necessary 



11 



to settle certain principles in relation to evidence. 
One of the most acute logicians, Mr. Hume, says, 
" Experience is the only sure guide to reasoning 
concerning matters of fact. Experience in some 
things is variable, in others uniform. A variable 
experience gives rise only to probability ; an uni- 
form experience amounts to proof. Our belief or 
assurance of any fact from the report of eye- 
witnesses, is derived from no other principle than 
experience; that is, our observation of the veracity 
of human testimony, and of the usual conformity 
of facts to the reports of witnesses." 

Let us apply these principles of the great meta- 
physician to the case before us. Many of you, as 
well as myself, have seen the town of Charlestown, 
— and what has been our experience concerning it? 
Have we seen Bunker's Hill the camp of Mars, and 
the town in flames ? Nothing like it. We have 
seen it repeatedly, and have witnessed no such 
spectacle. Our experience, our uniform experience, 
leads us to the conclusion that no such battle was 
ever fought there. Now, according to Mr. Hume, 
" a uniform experience amounts to proof." We 
have then proof positive, that Charlestown has 
never been the scene of blood that has been repre- 
sented. If we rely upon our own experience, the 



12 DOUBTS CONCERNING 

matter is decided at once ; and decided against the 
commonly received opinion. And if we take into 
the account the experience of others, we shall come 
to nearly the same conclusion. Of our acquain- 
tances more than ninety-nine out of a hundred, 
who have visited that place, will testify that their 
experience corresponds entirely with ours. The 
experience of our acquaintances, then, is as ninety- 
nine to one against the actual occurrence of the 
battle. There are, it is true, a few individuals 
among us, who profess to have been eye-witnesses 
of the scene which is reported to have occurred on 
the 17th of June, 1775. But what is our expe- 
rience in relation to human testimony ? We know 
that most men may easily be deceived, and that 
there are not wanting those who will willingly 
deceive others. We must bear in mind, that we 
have the experience of ninety-nine to one against 
this pretended battle ; and that the experience of 
the ninety-nine is uniform, whereas the experience 
of the one is variable. The few who profess to 
have seen the battle, will themselves allow that 
they have visited this famous spot at other times, 
and have not beheld anything like what appeared 
to their vision on that day. Their experience 
of the battle, therefore, is not only contrary to 



13 



the experience of others, but contrary to their 
own experience at all other times. Now by- 
adopting Mr. Hume's system of balancing the 
different experiences of individuals, we shall find 
that the weight of experience is altogether against 
what has been generally believed on this sub- 
ject. 

There are other considerations which go far to 
weaken the testimony of the few, who pretend to 
have been eye-witnesses of the scene. They are 
now old, superannuated men, whose memories are so 
treacherous that they can scarcely relate the events 
of yesterday. Surely these are not the most trust- 
worthy witnesses of what took place seventy years 
ago. But there is another consideration which 
should not be overlooked. The Battle of Bunker's 
Hill is a public affair, and such is the degeneracy 
of the age, that most men think it fair play to cheat 
the public. Men of honest minds, who would 
disdain to misrepresent in any case between indi- 
viduals, will in relation to public affairs testify to 
what they know to be untrue, without seeming 
aware that a wrong has been committed. Now 
the witnesses in favor of the Bunker's Hill affair 
are thus situated. The testimony, though false, does 
not injure directly any individual ; and they can 



1^ DOUBTS CONCERNING 

keep themselves in countenance by saying, that 
they have not borne false witness against their 
" neighbor," but have sustained a glorious page in 
their country's history. 

But there are objections to these witnesses of a 
graver character. They are interested^ and hence, 
by every rule of law, are not competent witnesses. 
Or if it should be said, that their interest is not of 
such a character as to destroy their competency, it 
must certainly affect their credibility, and greatly 
weaken the force of their testimony. For the last 
seventy years there has been a sort of charm in this 
pretended battle, and a kind of glory has seemed to 
gather around the head of every one who has suc- 
ceeded in making the public believe, that he was 
an actor in that scene. This has led many a boast- 
ed pretender to assert, that he was one of the 
choice few who stood forth in defence of liberty on 
that eventful day, — that he was one of those 
gallant spirits, who " fought, bled and died on Bun- 
ker's awful mount." To such excess have the 
public run upon this subject, that many are desir- 
ous of retaining the honor in their family, of having 
been on that venerated spot during the battle in 
the loins of their ancestors ; hence we frequently 
meet in the graveyards, among the inscriptions, 



J 



THE BATTLE OF BUNKEr's HILL. ^ 15 

(which are generally more remarkable for their 
extravagance and want of truth, than for their 
modesty or fidelity,) a declaration that the deceased 
was a " Revolutionary hero," or that he was " in 
the battle of Bunker's Hill." 

Under these circumstances, and with such an 
enthusiasm of feeling, the testimony of all the 
pretended actors in that drama must be received 
with great allowance. But for the last twenty 
years there has been another, and greater disqual- 
ification. Congress has adopted the pension 
system, a system which in all other countries has 
exerted a corrupting influence. By this system all 
who served for a certain period in the war of 
the Revolution, are entitled to the bounty of the 
Government. Thus a direct motive has been held 
out for false witness on this subject. Not that we 
accuse those of perjury, who have made oath that 
they were in the Battle of Bunker's Hill. "We 
know the propensity of some men to believe. 
They will begin with desiring to have been actors 
in a certain scene ; they will soon fancy that they 
were in some way or other connected with it ; they 
will go on adding little by little, and repeating 
the tale so often, that at length they will not be 
able to distinguish between what they saw in early 



16 DOUBTS CONCERNING 

life, and what they have often repeated ; and 
hence, by this progressive faith, will really become 
believers in their own idle tales. This principle 
may operate upon some of the witnesses of this 
pretended battle. Under this system of pensions 
from the General Government, and gratuities from 
our State Government, the surest road to honor 
and profit has been, to be a hero of Bunker's Hill. 
It is unnecessary for me to labor the point, that 
this direct influence gi-eatly weakens the credibility 
of the witnesses. 

But according to Mr. Hume, when the event 
itself is improbable, a greater degree of evidence 
is necessary to sustain it. Now there are on the 
face of this story many improbabilities. The 
Battle of Bunker's Hill and the burning of 
Charlestown are to be regarded as one event. We 
know that by the then existing laws of Great 
Britain, — which has been denominated the " bul- 
wark of the religion we profess," — no person was 
eligible to office, unless he belonged to the 
Established Church ; and is it credible that a 
professor of the religion of the meek and lowly 
Jesus, a religion full of mercy and good fruits, 
should be guilty of such wanton barbarity as 
General Gage must have shown, in burning the 



THE BATTLE OF BUNKEr's HILL. 17 

dwellings of the peaceable inhabitants, and turning 
the women and children of Charlestown, house- 
less, into the streets? The manifest inconsistency 
of such conduct with the character of a professed 
Christian, compels us to ask for the strongest 
possible evidence. 

But there is another improbability, of greater 
weight. The Americans are said to have acted 
under the direction of General Putnam, who from 
his having served in an earlier war against the 
French in Canada, must be supposed to have had 
some knowledge of military operations. Every 
one who is acquainted with the localities, knows 
that Charlestown is a peninsula connected with 
the main land on the west by a narrow belt called 
"the neck ; " and that the place said to be fortified 
by ttie Americans with their temporary breabt- 
work, is situated towards the easterly part of the 
town. Now no experienced General, no man of 
ordinary military skill, would presume to post his 
troops in a position so hazardous. He would 
perceive at once, that the enemy, by crossing 
Charles River in his boats, and taking possession 
of the neck and the high land near it, would render 
their retreat impossible ; and thus the whole party 
would be cut off. It is altogether incredible, that 
2 



J.8 DOUBTS CONCERNING . 

an officer of the reputed talent of General Putnam 

should have been guilty of such an egregious j 

blunder, — such an exposure of his men to certain I 

destruction. But if General Putnam had been | 

guilty of such a stupid arrangement, it is altogether 

incredible, that a commander of the reputation of 

General Gage should have failed to avail himself \ 

of this error. He could see from Copp's Hill, at | 

the north end of Boston, and also from Beacon ' 

Hill, the exact position of the Americans and the 

character of their temporary works ; and he must i 

have known, that by crossing the river, and taking i 

i 
possession of " the neck " and Bunker's Hill in j 

their rear, the whole body would be completely in | 

his power. But, as the story goes, he embarked 

his troops at Long Wharf, and landed them near I 

the present Navy Yard in Charlestown, so giving ■ 

the Americans every opportunity to escape. Now i 

I submit it to any military man to say, whether it , 

is at all probable that General Putnam would have . 

been guilty of so great an oversight, or that the : 

experienced commander of the British forces would ! 

have failed to avail himself of such an error of his j 

enemy. Such a series of blunders as the account j 

ascribes to these distinguished commanders, renders | 

the account itself highly suspicious. But admit | 



19 



that the whole story was got up by some person 
or persons unacquainted with military operations, 
and the difficulty is solved. 

There is also an improbability in the success of 
this pretended battle. Who can believe, that a 
few undisciplined troops brought together on a 
sudden emergency, with poor arms and a very 
scanty supply of ammunition, could for so long a 
time withstand the veteran troops of Great Britain, 
led on by experienced and brave commanders, and 
supported by the battery on Copp's Hill and by 
three or four ships of war ? There is so much of 
romance in this page of pretended history, that we 
are even called upon to believe, that after the 
Americans had expended their powder and ball, 
they sustained themselves for a time by throwing 
stones at the enemy. 

But what is still more conclusive in this case is, 
that the pretended eye-witnesses of this famous 
battle differ in some of the most important particu- 
lars in relation to the events of that day. Some 
twenty years ago, when many of the pretended 
actors in that drama were living, who are now in 
their graves, an account was published by a distin- 
guished citizen of this Commonwealth, who 
professed to have been present, and to have com- 



20 DOUBTS CONCERNING 

manded a company in that battle. He denied to 
General Putnam the honor of commanding the 
troops in person on the Hill, and ascribed that 
honor to Col. Prescott. This account drew forth 
a reply from the friends of General Putnam, 
accompanied with numerous affidavits of pre- 
tended eye-witnesses, declaring that Putnam was 
present in command upon the Hill during the 
action. Thus called upon, the author of the 
account alluded to, procured and published a large 
number of affidavits sustaining his position, that 
Putnam was not upon the Hill during the battle. 
Here we have a striking instance of conflicting 
testimony from the very persons who professed to 
have been eye-witnesses, and this difference relates 
not to some trifling circumstance, but to an essen- 
tial fact in the history, viz. the name of the 
commander. Every person acquainted with the 
history of military exploits, knows that the chief 
glory of a battle consists in conferring a sort of 
immortality upon the officer in command. The 
question, therefore, who commanded on Bunker's 
Hill, is important, and to men of military sensi- 
bility the 'most important one connected w^ith this 
whole subject. And yet on this all-important 
point, the eye-witnesses, though under oath, ex- 



21 



pressly contradict each other. Who would expect 
such discrepancy, such flat contradiction, among 
eye-witnesses? And what confidence can be 
placed upon testimony of this character ? The 
testimony of one class of these deponents must be 
false, and the testimony of both may be. The 
question of the existence of the battle itself was 
not raised during that controversy; if it had been, 
may we not fairly infer that there would have been 
as great a contradiction in the testimony in that 
case as in the other ? With men of " military 
mind" you might as well have no battle at all, as 
to be in doubt to whom the honor of command 
belongs. On supposition that the whole story is 
a fabrication, we can easily account for this con- 
flicting testimony ; but if such a battle were ever 
fought, it seems incredible that there should be a 
dispute as to the commander, among the officers 
and men who were in the engagement. But as it 
is, we have two conflicting accounts, and two 
heroes claiming the honors of that eventful day. 

There is also just that confusion in localities, 
which we might naturally expect in fiction. It is 
called the Battle of Bunkei'^s Hill, when all the 
people in that region will tell you, that there never 
was a battle fought upon Bunker's Hill. Even 



^ DOUBTS CONCERNING 

those who have been so fearful that the whole 
account would be disbelieved or forgotten, as to 
attempt to perpetuate the fiction by the erection of 
a monument, have virtually confessed that there 
was no battle on Bunker's Hill, by placing their 
monument on Breed's Hill. Does not this confu- 
sion of names and localities cast suspicion over the 
whole account? When we read the genealogies 
of the Heathen deities, where similar confusion 
occurs, we account for it by the fact that the whole 
is fabulous. Must not the same confusion lead to 
the same result in this case ? 

Bat it may be asked, why such a story should 
be invented, and how such a general belief should 
obtain, if the whole is a mere fiction ? The same 
questions might be asked concerning the Heathen 
mythology, to which I have just alluded ; but our 
inability to answer these questions definitely, does 
not establish those ridiculous and absurd tales. We 
may not be able at this late day, seventy years after 
the event is said to have taken place, to point out 
the fabricator of this story. But it is sutficient to 
say, that every age has its own peculiar hobby, and 
that at that period military exploits were all the 
rage. There was at that time such a feverish state 
of the public mind, that any story which went in 



THE BATTLE OF BUNKEr's HILL. 23 

any degree to cast reproach upon the " regulars," 
as the British troops were called in common speech, 
would be readily received by the great mass of the 
people. Besides, the people of Massachusetts had 
a strong motive for wishing to excite the sympathy 
of the other Colonies. The port of Boston was 
shut up. The town was occupied by British 
troops, who had committed many outrages upon 
the inhabitants. Whether Massachusetts should 
contend single-handed with such a foe, or whether 
she should enlist the other Colonies in her behalf, 
was a question of vital consequence to her. May 
we not, therefore, safely infer, that some knowing 
one, judging rightly of the effect that such a battle 
would have upon the Colonies generally, invented 
this story in order to bring aid from abroad, and to 
show the people that England was determined to 
reduce them to vassalage by fire and sword ? I do 
not say that this was the fact; but is there not a 
strong probability in its favor? May we not fairly 
infer, that it was a Yankee trick, got up and played 
off to answer the purpose mentioned above ? We 
know that the report of the battle did arouse the 
Colonies ; and if the story had been invented, as it 
answered a good purpose at the time, there would 
be a strong inducement to keep up the cheat until 



24 DOUBTS CONCERNING 

the close of the war. Nor could the people of 
Massachusetts, consistently with their interest, 
abandon the story on the return of peace. Every 
State was deeply involved in debt, and all were 
desirous of obtaining all the aid they could from 
the General Government. The story of the burn- 
ing of Charlestown, the bravery of the Yankees on 
the occasion, and the cost of that battle to the 
Colony, would plead loudly in her behalf; so that, 
if we admit the account to have been fabricated, 
there were strong inducements to keep up the 
delusion. 

But perhaps it may be said, that the erection of 
the monument is sufficient proof of the fact in 
question. I have no disposition to overlook the 
monument, or any circumstance which is supposed 
to bear upon the question before us ; but I wish to 
inquire, how a monument erected on Breeds Hill 
prove that a battle was ever fought on Bunker's 
Hill ? If a monument in one place settles the 
authenticity of the account of a battle in another, 
why may not this same monument authenticate 
the account of the battle at Yorktown, or Water- 
loo ? Besides, who would ever refer to image- 
worship to prove the truth of Christianity ? Does 
not the introduction of symbols of any kind rather 



25 



show, that the belief in the thing or event repre- 
sented is on the wane? If there was a full and 
firm belief that Bunker's Hill had been such a 
field of glory as has been represented, would there 
be any need of a pile of granite erected on the 
spot ? The people of Charlestown would naturally 
feel a pride and an interest in keeping up the 
impression, that the Revolutionary drama was 
opened within her borders ; and the people in the 
vicinity, and especially in the city of Boston, 
would naturally partake of the same feeling ; and 
if they saw that the belief in the oft-told tale of 
the Battle of Bunker's Hill was declining, what is 
more natural than that they should get up some- 
thing like the Monument Association, for the 
purpose of erecting that obelisk which has 
attracted the gaze of thousands, and gives a sort 
of notoriety to the place ? 

The success which attended the erection of that 
monument, is just what might have been expected 
on supposition that the whole account of the 
battle was fabulous. Application was made to 
the Legislature of Massachusetts for aid in its 
erection ; but with all the local interest which was 
brought to bear upon the subject, the State did 
little or nothing in furtherance of the object. Now 



26- DOUBTS CONCERNING. 

is it not almost certain, that the patriotic Legis- 
lature of the patriotic State of Massachusetts 
would have contributed largely to that magnificent 
undertaking, if they had believed that it was 
commemorative of an event which bad actually 
taken place ? Would a Government which extends 
its fostering care to pickerel and herring, to wood- 
cocks and the "least wing that flits along the sky," 
withhold its patronage from an Association whose 
object was to awaken the patriotic emotions, and 
pay a deserved tribute to the memory of those who 
hazarded all for their country's good ? Would a 
State which pours out its treasures like water in 
aid of every benevolent enterprise, and which 
encourages science and history by causing a survey 
(for this is the term used by the Legislature) of 
" bird, beast, fish, insect, what no eye can see" — 
would such a State suffer such a noble undertak- 
ing to linger twenty years, if its citizens really 
believed that it was designed to commemorate one 
of the proudest events in our history ? The course 
pursued by our State Government is altogether 
inexplicable on any other ground than the one 
we have suggested, — that great doubts existed 
whether such a battle was ever fought. 

In fact, such was the state of public feeling, 



27 



(arising from doubts of the truth of this famous 
exploit, we presume,) that it is very doubtful 
whether the monument would have been under- 
taken at all, had not a combination of circumstan- 
ces favored the commencement of the work. The 
Masonic Institution, which professes to be perfectly 
at home in everything relating to " geometry and 
architecture," and especially in building in stone 
and mortar, had not at that time wholly lost its 
popularity in the State. And availing themselves 
of the pageantry of that order, the Association for 
erecting the monument invited the Masons to lay 
the corner-stone " in due form." One of the most 
distinguished statesmen and orators of the country 
was selected to deliver the Address on the occa- 
sion ; and the nation's guest, the great and good 
La Fayette, being at that time in the country, was 
invited to be present. All these circumstances 
drew together a vast concourse of people, and gave 
an impulse to the undertaking. But it is presumed 
that few, very few, of those who were present on 
that occasion, intended by their presence to endorse 
the account of a battle fought there, half a century 
before. They wished to see La Fayette and Web- 
ster, and to witness the pomp and ceremony of the 
Masonic Institution, with its mystic rites, unintelli- 



2§ 



DOUBTS CONCERNING 



gible symbols, and " hieroglyphics older than the 
Nile." It is too great a draft upon human credulity, 
to ask us to believe, that that vast assembly was a 
cloud of witnesses in favor of the portion of 
history under consideration. 

The work was commiCnced under the circumstan- 
ces we have mentioned ; but when this unnatural, 
or rather artificial impulse had subsided, and the 
people came to their sober senses, the work was 
abandoned, and it stood a half finished monument 
of the credulity of a people long celebrated for 
their " notions." Several attempts were made to 
raise funds sufficient to complete the monument, 
but with little success. At length, the Mechanic 
Association, probably more from a desire to show 
the merchants and wealthy men in the Common- 
wealth, that they were not behind them in 
liberality, than from any well founded faith in the 
event to be commemorated, undertook to finish the 
structure. But active and persevering as they were, 
their faith and works both failed them, and the 
labor upon the monument was again suspended. 
Now all this is perfectly natural on our hypothesis, 
but totally irreconcilable with the position that the 
battle was a reality. It is difficult to believe, that 
the wealthy merchants of Boston, whose liberality 



29 



is proverbial, would have suffered this work to 
linger as it did, if they were satisfied of the reality 
of the event it proposed to perpetuate. But if the 
merchants of Boston had for once forgotten them- 
selves, and acted so contrary to their former 
character, we are confident that nothing but the 
want of faith could have restrained the intelligent, 
energetic and noble-spirited mechanics of the 
Commonwealth, or prevented their finishing that 
time-enduring work. 

As further evidence that real doubts existed, we 
may mention the fact, that part of the ground, on 
which the battle was reported to have been fought, 
was actually sold for building lots ! Is it possible 
that, if it was really believed so important an event 
took place on that spot, any part of it could have 
been alienated for so unworthy a purpose ? 

But there was one expedient more to be tried. 
The ladies, always noted for their credulity as well 
as for their generosity and untiring zeal, were at 
last appealed to ; and they were imploringly asked 
to finish what the men had hardly faith enough to 
begin. They entered upon the work with alacrity ; 
but even the faith and constancy of woman failed, 
before the capstone was brought on with rejoicing. 
Here the "work of faith and labor of love" were 



30 DOUBTS CONCERNING 

j 

exhausted, and the work would, in all probability, 

have been abandoned, had not the spirited and ! 
energetic contractor, perhaps to save his own 

reputation, and secure his pay for what he had ; 

already done, conceived the plan of levying a tax < 

upon the pilgrims who should resort to this Ameri- j 

can Mecca. Consequently he provided a steam- j 

engine, (for everything in these galloping days must ; 

go by steam,) and the necessary apparatus, by which ; 

the pilgrims were raised to the top of this majestic ' 

pillar. By the help of this tax he was enabled to . 

complete the monument about twenty years after ' 

it was commenced. i 

Now in view of all the circumstances connected j 

with the erection of this granite pile, have we not j 
reason to suspect, that the public have entertained 

great doubts of the authenticity of the portion of j 

history under consideration ? Or rather is not this i 

great delay inconsistent with a well-grounded faith | 

on the part of the people, and perfectly consistent ; 

with the hypothesis we have assumed ? And now ■ 

that the monument is completed, the same system \ 

of levying contributions upon visitors is kept up, j 

that was adopted by the Catholic priests in the | 

dark ages. Those who ascend this monastic I 

column, walking up its dark winding passage, with I 



31 



a dim light in their hands, must pay a tribute, not 
of respect 1o the memory of our fathers, but of 
money to the guardian goddess of Bunker's Hill. 

There are at this time many means resorted to, 
to keep up the impression that the history of this 
battle is not fabulous. Besides the tax imposed 
upon those whom credulity or curiosity may lead 
to the spot, there is also a sort of Dioramic show 
of this battle, which has been got up with great 
ingenuity, and which has been exhibited in various 
parts of the country, by which the owners are 
enabled to levy a contribution upon hundreds of 
those who never visited the battle-field. This is a 
kind of second edition of the devices of the 
Romish Church, by which those who never saw 
one of their saints when alive, are enabled to see 
and to possess, if they are able to pay the purchase- 
money, some pretended relic of him when dead. 

But the boldest expedient is yet to be mentioned. 
The Masons, it is said, have erected a little monu- 
ment within the great one, to aid in commemorating 
the fading glories of this memorable battle. This 
is drawing upon our credulity in the same manner 
the Irish monk did upon the traveller, when he 
showed him two skulls of St. Patrick, the one his 
skull when he was an adult, the other his skull 
when he was a boy ! 



32 DOUBTS CONCERNING 

All these influences are brought to bear upon the 
subject, to keep up the falteruig faith in that 
pretended military exploit. There is also a local 
interest, a State pride, which fosters this belief. 
Vermont points to Bennington, New York to 
"White Plains, New Jersey to Princeton, and 
Virginia to Yorktown, and it is a pity, if Massa- 
chusetts cannot divide the glories of the Revolution 
with her sister States, when she contributed so 
largely of her blood and treasure to carry on that 
war. Her efforts in that struggle would justly en- 
title her to at least one consecrated spot, to which 
those who have no patriotism themselves can point, 
and boast of the patriotism of their ancestors. 
Not that I would call in question the patriotism of 
our citizens generally ; but it is true of Massachu- 
setts men, as well as others, that those who have 
the most to say of the heroes of the Revolution, 
and who point to Bunker's Hill the most fre- 
quently, have the least of that self-denying spirit, 
which characterized our ancestors. Such men 
could hardly sustain themselves, if Bunker's Hill 
were blotted from their memory. This local feeling, 
this State pride, this boast of our father's patriot- 
ism, uttered so loudly by those who have none 
themselves, united with pecuniary interests, serves 



33 



to keep up a pretended or real belief in the event. 
And besides, all who have contributed to the 
erection of the monument, are committed to that 
belief. For such persons to reject this boasted 
page in our history, would be confessing either that 
"^'hey had been imposed upon themselves, or that 
they had endeavored to impose upon others. And 
the number thus committed is very great ; for I 
believe, in some cases the subscription was re- 
stricted to the small sum of five dollars as the 
maximum, on the plea that no one might be 
deprived of the opportunity of having his name 
enrolled among those who cherished a grateful 
remembrance of the deeds of departed heroes. 
But may not this limited subscription be fairly 
construed into an admission, that five dollars was 
the measure of the strongest faith on this subject; 
and may we not infer that this was a device to 
enlist as many as possible, so that if this pretended 
battle should ever be called in question, these 
subscribers should ever hold their peace ? 

Taking all these circumstances into view, it is 
not at all surprising that the great mass of the 
people should believe, or pretend to believe, in this 
opening scene of the revolutionary drama. The 
mass believe in it, because the belief is fashionable. 
3 



2A DOUBTS CONCERNING 

The superstitious believe in it, because they think 
it nearly allied to impiety to call it in question. 
The worldly wise and prudent acquiesce in it, 
through fear that an agitation of the question 
would produce excitement. And the unprincipled 
demagogue adopts it, because he finds Bunker's 
Hill a convenient watch-word to excite the passions 
of the ignorant. 

I might pursue this subject further, and show 
other causes which, in want of sufficient evidence, 
serve to keep up this belief; but I deem it unneces- 
sary. I have shown, on the great principles of Mr. 
Hume's theory, that the Battle of Bunker's Hill is 
not entitled to our belief; that experience, that 
great touchstone of truth, is decidedly against it ; 
that the event itself is improbable; that the wit- 
nesses in its favor are interested, and that their 
testimony is contradictory. We have also seen 
that the tardiness in the erection of the monument 
furnishes a strong presumptive argument, that 
those who erected it had but a wavering faith in 
the event the structure proposed to perpetuate ; 
and that local feeling, personal interest, and State 
pride will easily account for the general belief we 
find in the community, even admitting the history 
of the event to be fabulous. 



THE BATTLE OF BUNKER's HILL. 35 

I do not intend to be dogmatical, but I would 
respectfully ask whether we have not made out our 
case. Have we not shown, on the theory laid down 
by Mr. Hume, that the people have been grossly 
deceived on this subject? I think we have. We 
have followed out the reasoning of the great logi- 
cian, and are, it seems to me, compelled to admit, 
either that the accounts we have read from our 
childhood, of the Battle of Bunker's Hill are all 
a fabrication, or that Hume's great argument is 
fallacious, and his positions false. Here, then, is the 
dilemma. And which horn shall we embrace? 
If we follow Hume, we shall unsettle the faith of 
thousands, and destroy all confidence in history; 
and if we adhere to the common opinion of the 
events of June 17th, 1775, we assail the great 
logician, draw upon ourselves the charge of being 
credulous, and are justly exposed to the sneers of 
all unbelievers. Nay, more ; if we reject Hume's 
theory, we shall be charged with being led by 
Campbell, and other priests, who, it is said, are 
interested in keeping up a great reverence for what 
is called faith. If we discard the theory of Hume, 
we shall be accused of being priest-ridden, and so 
wanting in manly independence. Moreover, we 
shall, in such case, be required to believe not only 



36 DOUBTS CONCERNING 

in the Battle of Bunker's Hill, but in other events 
recorded in history. We shall also be compelled 
to believe in the events recorded in the Scriptures, 
and to receive the precepts of Christ and his 
Apostles, which have always been found to be 
troublesome companions for those of us, who, 
reject Puritanism, wish not only to think, but to 
act and live freely — that is, to enjoy our "home- 
bred and fire-side rights." 

On a full view of the whole subject, I am 
inclined to adhere to the theory laid down by 
Hume, who may be regarded as the father of all 
rational unbelief. His theory makes short work of 
miracles and the other dogmas of religion. It is too 
laborious a task, to refute all the arguments which 
are brought in support of Christianity, even if it 
were possible. Who can have patience to plod 
through Lardner's elaborate " Credibility," or even 
Paley's " Evidences of Christianity ? " Butler's 
" Analogy " requires more study and thought than 
most of us wish to bestow upon that subject. 
West on the " Resurrection of Christ " is a small 
book, but exceedingly difficult to answer ; and 
Littleton on the " Conversion of St. Paul " has so 
perplexed me, that I have resolved never to attempt 
to read it again. Leland's " View of Deistical 



37 



Writers " presents the opinions of our friends in 
such an awkward light, that I have no patience 
with it ; and even Leslie's short and Easy Method 
with the Deists," is far too long and hard for me 
to answer. Now, considering the multiplicity of 
books in support of Divine revelation, and the 
great difficulty there is in answering their argu- 
ments in detail, I have felt the necessity of some 
" short and easy method " of meeting these argu- 
ments at once ; and I find nothing so convenient 
as Hume's theory. I can answer all these writers, 
meet all their arguments, and overthrow all their 
statements, by the talismanic reply of Mr. Hume 
— The experience of the world is against it. 

This summary mode of meeting all kinds of 
troublesome arguments, I have found of great 
service on innummerable occasions. I therefore 
cling to it. I regard it as a kind of labor-saving 
machine, which answers every purpose, and has 
this additional recommendation, that the superficial 
can employ it just as well as the profound. I have 
found it perfectly satisfactory in speculation. I 
say in speculation^ for I must confess, that it will 
not hold good in the common affairs of life When 
I first became acquainted with the writings of Mr. 
Hume, I was so pleased with his theory, that I 



sS 



DOUBTS CONCERNING 



resolved to make it the rule of my life in the i 
management of my ordinary affairs. But you can , 
hardly conceive of my mortification, when I found 
this, my favorite theory, utterly to fail me. I , 
learned by that very experience which Mr. Hume I 
commends, that his theory led me to doubt every- s 
thing, to withdraw confidence from every body, 
and refrain from all action whatever. I found it 
would paralyze all effort, destroy all business trans- 
actions, and produce a sort of Mesmeric sleep in 
the whole community. My embarrassment was i 
extreme ; but I soon extricated myself from this i 
difficulty by adopting a theory of my own concern- j 
ing Mr. Hume's theory, viz. that his grand position j 
of human experience was merely theoretical, — well : 
adapted to matters of speculation, but never ■ 
designed to apply to the tangibilities of life. ; 
This view of Mr Hume's theory, I find exceed- i 
ingly convenient. I can use it or disuse it, as the , 
case may require. I employ it in all matters of j 
mere opinion, in all abstract speculations, but dis- 
card it, or rather lay it aside, in all cases of a : 
practical character. In this way I enjoy all the j 
benefits of his theory without any of its embarrass- | 
ments. But utility is not the only recommendation 
of my theory ; it avoids many popular objections. 



THE BATTLE OF BUNKEr's HILL. 39 

I keep temporals and spirituals entirely separate ; 
and hence can never be accused of designing to 
unite Church and State. I keep everything in its 
place, and have appropriate modes of reasoning for 
each particular department, thus giving to each a 
portion in due season. 

I have thus expressed myself freely, and have 
given my views without reserve ; and I trust that I 
shall not be discarded for my frankness, or be 
pronounced an infidel. It is true that I reject 
revelation, but why should I be denied the Chris- 
tian name on that account, any more than others ? 
The difference between us is little more than this. I 
discard miracles, because I consider them impossi- 
ble ; while some who call themselves Christian 
Ministers discard them, because they think them of 
no consequence, even if they were true. I discard 
the doctrines of Christ, because they are so far in 
advance of the spirit of the age, that the world 
cannot for centuries come up to that elevated stan- 
dard ; they virtually discard them, because they 
fancy that they have already outgrown them, and 
have a higher and purer standard of their own. I 
regard the Gospel as too abstract and elevated for 
beings of an earthly mould ; they, as too tangible 
and grovelling for intellectual society. My faith 



4(i DOUBTS CONCERNING 

• 

rests upon outward, palpable evidence which all 
can understand ; theirs, upon an inward impulse 
which no one can comprehend. But while this 
marked difference obtains between us in these 
respects, we virtually agree in this, that we can 
yield no credence to that phantom called authority^ 
but must make our own sense of propriety the 
only standard of truth. Agreeing in this important 
essential, we stand substantially upon the same 
platform, and should be called by the same name. 

In some respects, I profess to stand in advance 
of many who call themselves Christians. I may 
have less of faith, but I claim more of works than 
some others. I am opposed to vice in all its forms, 
especially when it appears in its more fashionable 
and grosser types ; and hence I am willing that 
gambling, and intemperance, and slavery, and 
aggressive war should be assailed either by the 
press or from the pulpit. But many professed 
Christians entertain such refined, abstract, etherial 
views of religion, that they will tolerate nothing of 
the kind ; and if their religious teachers say any- 
thing on these subjects, they will at once exclaim, 
— " This is preaching politics, and not the Gospel — 
ministers should preach Christ, and him crucified ! " 
Not being troubled with any such exquisite views 



THE BATTLE OF BUNKER's HILL. 41 

of religion and religious duties, I am willing that 
those we employ as religious teachers, should not 
only " shoot folly as it flies," but assail spiritual 
and temporal wickedness, whether it shows itself 
in high or low places. 



THE END. 



]¥APOL.EON BIJOJVAPARTE. 



HISTORIC DOUBTS 

RELATIVE TO 

NAPOLEON BUONAPARTE. 

BY 

ARCHBISHOP WHATELY. 

The first author who stated fairly the connection between the 
evidence of testimony and the evidence of experience was Hume, 
in his " Essay on Miracles," a work abounding in maxims of 
great use in the conduct of life. — Edinburgh Reciew. 

NEW EDITION, 

FROM THE ELEVENTH LONDON EDITION j 

WITH POSTSCRIPTS. 

One volume. 16nio. Cloth, stamped, 37 Cents. 



PUBLISHED BY 

No. 134, Washington Street, Boston, and Lyceum Building, 
Cambridge, Mass. 



" There have been very few illustrations of logic which have 
attained the popularity of Archbishop Whately's celebrated little 
book, called ' Historical Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buona- 
parte.' We advise all debaters, lawyers, and men fond of argu- 
ment for its own sake, to read this book. It will be to them an 
intellectual treat, and a good practical lesson. It is the best 
instance we know of wherein a logician has undertaken to test 
his art in the abstract by analysis of a popular subject." — 
Literary World. 

"This work is very instructive and amusing, especially to 
those who love debate and frequent debating societies. Good and 
logical arguments are adduced to prove that Napoleon was a 
fictional personage, and never had an existence ; although it 
would be impossible to sustain such an assertion. We think the 



work is produced for the purpose of benefiting and converting the 
followers of Hume, Voltaire, &c., as the author makes several 
sharp cuts in that direction.'* — Christian Htrald. 

" This work, originally published in 1819, has passed through 
eleven editions in Great Britain, and has now reached to a fourth 
in this country. It is -from the pen of the acute and learned 
Archbishop Whately, and is one of the most ingenious arguments 
on the subject of historic evidence ever framed. It has com- 
manded the attention and respect of the ablest men of the age." 
— Puritan Recorder. 

" Archbishop Whately 'a little tractate is well known and justly 
appreciated as one of tlie most successful instances in which the 
reductio ad absurdum has been employed in the refutation of a 
false doctrine. Indeed, it is impossible for any work of the kind 
to be more successful in accomplishing the object intended ; and 
the essay will only cease to be read when Hume's Essay on Mira- 
cles is forgotten. If Archbishop Whately had never written or 
spoken on any other subject, his name would still be held in 
honor as that of the author of this admirable little volume. The 
edition before us is very handsomely printed, and in addition to 
the three Postscripts contained in the former editions, it has a 
fourth Postscript, from the last Landon edition, adducing some 
new arguments." — Boston Traveller. 



By the same Author. 

ELEMENTS OF LOGIC, comprising the substance of the arti- 
cle in the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana. Revised edition. 
12mo. pp. 484. 

ELEMENTS OF RHETORIC; comprising an Analysis of the 
Laws of Moral Evidence and of Persuasion, with Rules for Ar- 
gumentative Composition and Elocution. New edition, revised 
by the Author. 12mo. pp. 546. 

EASY LESSONS ON REASONING. Third American from 
the last English edition. 12mo. pp. 180. 62 Cents. 

A SELECTION OF ENGLISH SYNONYMS. First American 
from the second London edition. Revised, with Additions. 
l2mo. pp. 180. 62 Cents. 



" COMMUNION WITH WHATELY's MIND WOULD IMPROVE 

ANY MIND ON EARTH." — Preshyteriau Qtly. Review. 



wi-r 










^^ % 




























'' .o" ^^ '♦cTo'- ^^"^ 













<j5°«. 






